opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
5 Feb 2016
Donald Trump: Sore Loser

It was the shortest speech anyone can remember him giving. He was clearly in a state of disbelief. How could … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Rubio's the One

You can pick your headline for Iowa: "Trump Didn't Win!" "Hillary Didn't Lose!" "Rubio's the One!" I prefer … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
Donald Ducks

"I'm for Trump," the man across the room from me said. We were in the ICU family waiting room, and by that point,… Read More.



In backgrounding reporters in advance of the Democratic convention, organizers reportedly stressed that the tone in Charlotte would be much more optimistic than that in Tampa: that Democrats are looking "forward," focusing on the future, even as they trumpet President Obama's past accomplishments.

Good try, my friends.

I don't think the word "optimism" is ever going to be associated with this presidential campaign. Negative, ugly, a total turnoff, a triumph of tactics over strategic vision, an endless parade of negative ads, many of them out there with no clue as to who paid for them.

I am cautiously optimistic that at the end of it the president will win. My optimism is cautious because of the economy, of course. Incumbents do well in good economies. If the economy were buzzing, Obama would be a shoe-in, singing "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

The way for an incumbent to win re-election in a tough economy is basically to make his opponent look like a bigger risk, which may not be that hard to do with the Romney-Ryan ticket.

But am I optimistic about the campaign?

Actually, with the impact of super-PACs and anonymous negative ads, and given the bad economy, the questions about where Mitt Romney actually stands, and the questions about where Paul Ryan has stood in the past, I think this one may win the prize for rock-solid unpleasantness.

Whichever side you happen to be on, that is really, really bad news. For the country, I mean.

I had the pleasure of attending a dinner for Shirley Williams, actually Baroness Williams of Crosby, who first ran for office in her 20s, was elected to Parliament as a Labour Member in her 30s, co-founded the Social Democratic Party in 1981, and served as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords from 2001 to 2004.

Oh, yes, she is also a professor emeritus at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. And the first thing she said to her assembled guests was that she was worried about the state of American politics.

With reason. Part of it is the money, no question about that, which is pumping out an unlimited supply of negative ads without even the disclosure that the United States Supreme Court thought it was still preserving in Citizens United.

Part of it is the natural evolution — really devolution — of partisan politics and the media coverage of it. If the day-to-day functioning of politics leaves you feeling like you want to take a shower; if the screaming and yelling on television by people being paid to scream and yell along party lines passes for news during the rest of the year; if the endless bickering over nothing and the preference, particularly in Congress, for attacking rather than doing is dominant during the three and three-quarter years when a presidential campaign is not going strong; then what do you expect to see when it is? As much as people claim to hate negative ads, you won't find a political pro who would urge either Obama or Romney to run, in the words of Professor (not President) Michael Dukakis, a "strong and positive campaign." The phrase has become an oxymoron.

Then there's the reality of social media. Many people thought that social media might be the salvation of politics, bringing into the process the young non-voters who have literally grown up without ever seeing politics as a positive force in their lives. Many people thought social media might unleash new forms of activism that were not dependent on big money and bad ads.

Not yet. Not even close. Social media discourse is riddled with misinformation and invective, without even the fig leaf of fact checking. Maybe that will change. Maybe a new movement of reform is around the corner. But that corner looks very far away right now.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



26 Comments | Post Comment
On the opening day of the Demorat convention the national debt rose over $16 trillion, the numbers of people on food stamps grew to record highs, all references to God were dropped from the Demorat platform, all references to support for our ally Isreal were likewise dropped, tax funding for abortion at all and any stage of pregnancy was endorsed, support for gay marriage was endorsed, a video asserting that government was the only thing we all "belong to "was played and the first whatever she is moochelle obama gave a speech which did nothing other than endorse and call for more government and statism.
The GOP has no need for super packs or negative ads. The Democratic Party leadership for anyone watching for even a short time, does a fine job of displaying and messaging from their own mouths just what that party has become, to wit, an islam pandering, Godless, Isreal hating, unconscionable debt creating, infanticide enabling, women marginalizing bunch of lying identity politics , deviant , anti business, pro socialism , pro public union, anti American dream Marxists.
There is no sustainable counter argument.
Comment: #1
Posted by: joseph wright
Tue Sep 4, 2012 11:28 PM
Nutjob bigot Wright once again ignores what most Republicans ignore and that is that a huge part of our National debt was run up under the Bush years and in addition to that debt, the debt service interest daily compounds that debt. The war in Afghanistan daily adds to that DEbt and is the chief driver of that debt. Thank God that this president is committed to getting us out of that war.
Comment: #2
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:02 AM
Mr. Lipka wrote:

"Nutjob bigot Wright once again ignores what most Republicans ignore and that is that a huge part of our National debt was run up under the Bush years "

Two things. First, let's refrain from ad hominen attacks. It is the very type of thing that Ms. Estrich is wisely worried about. Secondly, the Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up by over $5.0 trillion since President Obama took office (N.B., Less than one full term). Apparently Obama gets credit for even a 'huger' portion of the debt than Bush. Just think what Obama can do with a second term!

Finally, let me complement the author on a nice thought provoking article. I almost never agree with Ms. Estrich but she makes me think (sometimes).
Comment: #3
Posted by: Old Navy
Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:27 AM
Re: robert lipka
Clearly I had forgotten the standard excuse for all things true about the boy barack ,about his abject failure and about the abject failure of all progressive policy, to wit," it was Bush's fault"
Lipka makes my argument for me every time.
Guess Bush wrote the dem party platform , gave the speeches, guided dem policy, passed obamacare, passed the failed stimulus, prevented the dems from passing a budget for years, paid billions to obama''s cronies, destroyed the energy industry, let the EPA run rampant, placed endless obstacles in front of the job creators, expanded government exponentially , put us on a path to $20 trillion in debt by 2016 and did all this while he was out of office, while obama was president and while the dems had unassailable majorities in house and senate for years.
What a guy! Who would have thought a president retired from office could have had such an effect? Sober up.
Comment: #4
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 5, 2012 4:08 AM
Re: robert lipka
Me thinks you conveniently forgot we didn't start the war against the Islamic Terrorists. Like any good President Bush took the axe to them. You would have done what?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Oldtimer
Wed Sep 5, 2012 4:08 AM
Just imagine how really fantastic the Bush Presidency (economy included) would have been if:
9/11 hadn't happened.
The Demwits didn't take over the congress in 2006.
And Republicans had been in charge of NO and Louisiana when Katrina happened.
History forgotten by the Demwits but not by the rest of us.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Oldtimer
Wed Sep 5, 2012 5:48 AM
Robert I don't know where you got the idea that Obama is trying to END wars. I've only seen him START them. 4 years is more than enough time to get out of Afgahnistan. Don't forget he bombed Lybia. And soon he'll be starting wars with Syria, Turkey, and Iran. And he sent a secret memo to Congress to quietly continue the war in Iraq. Obama wakes up every day and signs a kill order over a bowl of Wheaties. He's just as bad a warmonger than Bush.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Sep 5, 2012 6:43 AM
Re: robert lipka
Let's just look at the Bush/Cheney years to understand why the GOP didn't invite them to the party and what kind of President the Estrich nutjobs support and want running the country.
President Bush with the assistance of his VP Cheney....
Took more vacation time than any other President
Invaded Iraq to get rid of WMDs which didn't exist
Implemented protectionist steel tariffs
Outed a CIA agent for political purposes
Fired prosecutors who refused to abuse their positions for political purposes
Disregarded FISA laws and wiretappd Americans without warrants
Never caught Osama Bin Laden
Failed to plan for Iraq occupation after Saddam's government fell and the subsequent occupation has killed 150,000 Iraqi civilians.
Created a vague “enemy combatant” status in order to indefinitely hold foreigners and even US citizens without trying or charging them with a crime.
Used torture to interrogate prisoners despite evidence that says information acquired through unreliable
Prematurely said the mission in Iraq had been accomplished.
Approved budgets that outspent our tax revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Poor leadership on response to Hurrican Katrina
Little or no policy changes on our changing climate
Didn't veto a single bill for six years and when he finally did it was to shoot down the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Passed the Military Commissions Act, which removes the right to Habeus Corpus, one of the most fundamental safe guards against tyrannical governments.
Pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty
Issues illegal “signing statements” when passing bills, saying which portions of the bill he will or won't enforce.? This essentially allows him to rewrite legislation.
Pushed for elections in Palestine that lead to a Hamas victory, and then tried to overthrow them.
Allowed Don Rumsfeld to outsource much of the Iraq war to security contractors which are not subject to Iraqi or American military laws or standards.
Tried to appoint his personal attorney, Harriet Myers, to the supreme court.
Dangerous diplomatic philosophy that discourages peaceful negotiations with certain nations.
Appointed John Bolton, a man who said “there is no such thing as the United Nations“, as the UN Ambassador.
Consistent intellectual disinterest in his job.
Failed to act on warning signs of the September, 11th attacks.
Was dishonest with the American people about his National Guard service.
Lied about giving up golf in a time of war.
Dissolving the Iraqi army right after the war, putting thousands of trained soldiers into the insurgency.
Believing Paul Wolfowitz that the war and subsequent reconstruction would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenue.
His policies contributed to a quadrupling of the price of oil.
Lied to the American people that Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaeda
Comment: #8
Posted by: morgan
Wed Sep 5, 2012 8:38 AM
Re: morgan
Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
Notwithstanding that each and every lib canard spouted by Morgan is readily rebutted and has been rebutted time and again, Morgan like Lipka before her, reinforces my point that libs have no sustainable argument for the catastrophic momunental failures of obama and liberal policy, no defenses to the depth of secularism, Islamism and anti semitism, no defences to the depth of the culture of death for the unborn, no defences to the depth of marginalization of women by insisting that women are one subject reproductive rights /free contraception drones, no defenses to their rampant statism and no defenses to the quota based identity politics to which the Democratic party has sunk other than " it was Bush's fault"
It truly is a joke.
What's next Reid couldn't pass a budget in four years and Obama could'nt get a single vote for his proposed budgets because the dog ate the fiscally responsible budgets that were made ready.
Comment: #9
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 5, 2012 9:22 AM
There's plenty more the little man and little dick accomplished during their eight years including Medicare part D, tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy.
Then there's Cheney's coup de grace manipulation which occurred when Cheney was asked for details about his involvement with the Energy Task Force, he refused to disclose any documents, citing executive privilege. But then when Cheney's office was suspected of disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent to retaliate against her husband for criticizing the Administration, Cheney took a different approach. To avoid disclosing how his office handled classified information (which we have the right to know), Cheney maintained that his office was not part of the executive branch, since the Vice President is also President of the Senate. Even today, little dick and the silly little man can't travel out of the country because they are at risk for immediate arrest by the global community.
One wonders why the nutjobs attacking Biden and Obama didn't insist that the smug little man they supported know something during his administration? About every other time Bush opened his mouth, most of the educated part of the world was left stunned by the displayed limits of his knowledge and/or thinking abilities
Copying a great joke Mark shared with us: A reporter approached a fire chief after they extinguished a blazing house fire asking "Chief, isn't it true that the house is more damaged now than when you first arrived'?" In a nutshell, that is the Republican's question to commander in chief, Obama. Again from Mark, "The history of deep recessions is that the turn around is never fast. Romney or Obama, it will take a long time."
Comment: #10
Posted by: morgan
Wed Sep 5, 2012 9:25 AM
I have no apologies for placing the label racist bigot on the above mentioned poster JW . I have been reading his racist rants for many months now and It is a very appropriate label. The man does not know how to argue any point without launching into racist drivel and hate speech. He immediately jumps on any new poster who makes any coherant point and attempts to intimidate them. I am glad that Morgan has seen through his intimidation attempts and continues to make saient and interesting points. I would suggest that others who are intimidated by this bully continue to make their points. And understand that Ms. Estrich continues to write one of the more interesting columns and attracts a lot of readers and counter-commenters That is what make for good dialogue but bigotry as displayed by the above poster JW is hardly worth reading. He is probably a very lonly man who has isolated himself as a result of his bigotry and now is reduced to posting his bigotted remarks on line.
Comment: #11
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Sep 5, 2012 9:43 AM
Now let's look at what Republicans considered a priority in 2009. Here's a clue, it's not the economy and it's not getting your job or home back. Nope.

Number one priority: defeat Obama's presidency at any and all cost including hurt the country and hurt the people.
Second priority: Honor their pledge to Grover Norquist.

How about that, no concern at all for compromise or agreement or jobs or housing or economic recovery.
And the very reason so many Republican centrists quit or changed parties.
And it's why Simpson and Bowles defend President Obama and blow the whistle on the Republican's not supporting good policies and bills simply because they came from President Obama.
If one bothered, they would also find the Tea Party and freshmen Republicans guilty of interfering with our economic recovery.

The truth is out there to be found and you can run from it or deny it but it stands up and wont go away.
You seem to forget with your limited responses that no one is saying Obama is all that. We are saying the Republicans did everything moral and immoral to corrupt and thwart whatever Obama put out there to ensure they had control and limit his successes. And spent big money trying to erase our memories of little man and little dick.

According to Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader "from Obama's first day in office it has been the Republican party's top priority to make him a one term President."
From Mitch McConnells mouth.... Republicans give low priority to jobs and to our economic recovery; and they've got the low ratings to prove it.

Comment: #12
Posted by: morgan
Wed Sep 5, 2012 10:16 AM
Re: robert lipka
Lipka and Morgan never fail to reinforce the point that libs can never address the actual issues, which are, obama's performance or lack thereof. If its not "it was Bush's fault" then the next consistent fall back position is racism. Oft times in real desperation the two arguments are run simultaneously.
A word to the wise Lipka and Morgan. Guess what ? Seems that neither of you have noticed yet, but Bush was not running in the last general election and Bush is not running in this general election. However, as Lipka suggests I agree that all libs should continue with the Bush's fault and racism mantras. After all it is all that they have. Carry on. Knock yourselves out.
For those not part of the idiot or recipient classes, the last thing that a lib wants to bring up and for very good reason is obama. They most certaily do not want to get anywhere near obama's proven record of abject failure in all that he has touched in particular his failure to stem unemployment, his abject failure to stem the debt and deficit and his abject failure to turn the economy around. On any objective standard obama has the worst recovery record ever.
Those proven documented and recorded failures are born out of either complete and utter ineptitude or alternatively a premeditated attempt to transform the Repbulic.
As it is not possible to fundamentally transform something without destroying the essence of that which is to be fundamentally transformed and as it was obama's clearly stated intention to fundamentally transform America, the objective evidence is that he is intentionally using unemployment and entitlement spending as a weapon of mass destruction of the economy as a part of the fundamantal transformation process that he embarked upon in 2009.
With the assistance of the recipient, idiot and big government classes, if re elected he might succeed in that destruction.
Oops! There I go again being bigotted and racist. Still never mind.
Comment: #13
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 5, 2012 10:18 AM
Morgan: I am glad you mentioned Grover Norquist. For the life of me , I do not know how this man has come to control so many Republicans and holds our tax policy hostage. Grover Norquist is the co-founder of the Islamic Institute based in Washington D.C. and actually based in the exact same offices that Norquist now uses for his lobbying business. Norquist is married to a Kuwaiti woman who was the main lobbying force behind that Mosque in New York that was to be almost within sight of the 9/11 trade center memorial. Both Norquists have lobbied hard for Muslim and Islamic interests for many years and their funding, which is huge, comes from sources Norquist refuses to name. Many have claimed that he actually has a more sinister purpose in weilding control over U.S tax policy. What better way for an enemy to influence public policy than to have control over the purse strings of a country and holding sway over many many politicians who have been duped into thinking that they are somehow voting for the public good????? When I wrote to my local Congressman about this, he pormised to check into my inquiry.....I am still waiting.
Comment: #14
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Sep 5, 2012 11:01 AM
Re: robert lipka,
Very informative, great points and It makes sense. What better way to cover your dirt than accuse the sitting President of being Muslim and favoring Islamists while controlling the voting power of the entire Republican party?
Grover slips under the radar while pointing fingers at Hilary Clinton's aide and sending their tool, Michelle B. off to investigate the Democrats.
In the meanwhile, the racist bigot poster you referenced and the other nutjobs, continue to entertain themselves with their delusion that Obama is the Islamist. LOL!
Enough. The day and the fish are waiting.

Comment: #15
Posted by: morgan
Wed Sep 5, 2012 11:42 AM
Re: robert lipka .. While Wright might be a nutjob...i dont know him personally....what exactly did he say that made him a bigot? or are you just reacting with pure emotion and striking out with labels designed to get a "knee jerk" reaction.

In my robert....are the bigot......
Comment: #16
Posted by: Rock
Wed Sep 5, 2012 1:21 PM
Gosh I love Estrich articles. The articles themselves are 80% crap, but the comments are more entertaining than anything else I've come across.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:06 PM
Re: morgan and lipka

Let me see if I can properly re state or crystalise their combined last two posts/arguments nay their combined unwitting rank hypocricy?

In their combined opinions the GOP should not engage at all with Norquist, even on matters of taxing and the like because his wife was born into a muslim family, he is the alleged co founder of the Islamic Institute and he and his wife are lobbying forces behind the mosque at ground zero and as a separate issue solely because of those matters surrounding Norquist this "racist bigot poster" is delusional as to obama being an Islamist. The rationale or logic behind the combined arguments and conclusions is simply not discoverable. I need make no comment upon Norquist to illustrate the point.

When lipka's and morgan's last posts are taken together they clearly agree with one another that Islam is not to be tolerated, that muslims are not to be tolerated, that anyone having a muslim spouse is not to be tolerated for that reason, that a mosque at ground zero is not to be tolerated, that anyone possibly influenced by islam and being in a position to influence the policy of one of our national parties is not to be tolerated and agree that if any of the foregoing apply to an individual that individual himself is not to be tolerated. The foregoing notwithstanding because obama and huma abedin are democrats or work for democrats that the matters declared intolerable in Norquist are then magically transformed to be not just tolerable but indeed desirable. Hmmmm!

And this pair has the absolute gall to call me a racist and a bigot ! LOL !

Seems that a racist and a bigot could take instruction and lessons in racial bigotry from that pair. Where does one sign up ? LOL again !

Lipka and morgan consistently illustrate [as David Mamet so elequently put it speaking as a reformed liberal] that "the struggle of the left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable SIsphean burden".

For Lipka and Morgan racism and bigotry is bad unless it is practiced by them in which case racism and bigotry is good. Crazy huh? Yes ! But that is and always has been the liberal/progressive way.
Comment: #18
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:21 PM
Re: nutjob.

You can't "properly restate it". Just do what you've always done. Protect your oversized ego by spinning and twisting the words of others to suit your own sick needs. You don't have the capability or the intellect to be interesting just being what you are, a Susan Estrich wannabe is amusing. Not a good enough student to cut it in Ms. Estrich's classes and too little interest to do or be anything of value to others.

Re: robert lipka. An old military buddy and his wife came over to watch the DNC, both Republicans. Clinton was so eloquent in refuting Republican lies that the Reps lost two voters last night. Pretty Awesome! I wasn't able to sway them even after I turned them on to Creators. It was Clinton's speech that put it over the top. Hope you got a chance to watch it. Funny enough, they didn't know the back story on Grover Norquist. I knew his wife was Muslim but never gave it much thought, but I gotta tell you, your statement, "What better way for an enemy to influence public policy than to have control over the purse strings of a country and holding sway over many many politicians who have been duped into thinking that they are somehow voting for the public good?????" made for some interesting speculation.

Comment: #19
Posted by: morgan
Thu Sep 6, 2012 3:05 AM
Quite a tempest in a teapot here! I'm now convinced not to vote for the Bush/Cheney ticket again. However, a brief review of the Constitution and the Republican ticket shows they are not, and in fact can not be, on the ballot this fall. Darn!

What I fail to discern in all this back and forth is any reason to vote to re-elect the present denizen of the White House. Whether it is due to his own shortcomings (likely) or due to the evil machinations of the cunning Republicans (poor excuse), Obama is floundering as a leader. If he is re-elected, what is going to change to improve his performance? Does the man have any real, coherent plans (Not political talking points created to get past the election) to fix any of this countries problems? Could any of these plans (if they exist) actually be expected to work?

Those are the real issues of this election. When your only apparent argument for re-election is that you are not the other guy and that that individual might do worse then I've done, your campaign is in trouble.

So I'll ask the question again. Why should we vote for the failure that is Barack Obama? How do things get better if he is re-elected? Without that kind of argument, most individuals would rightly vote against a known failure.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Old Navy
Thu Sep 6, 2012 3:44 AM

Why is it the racist nutjobs get so hot and bothered when we talk about the little man Bush and little dickie Cheney?

Was there ever a time the previous Republican President and Vice President weren't invited to the GOP convention?

Why do you think they weren't invited?

Could it be that the GOP is hoping we'll forget about that crooked little man and crooked little dick and elect another Republican for a continuation of the Bush years? Maybe then they'd be allowed to attend the GOP convention?
Comment: #21
Posted by: morgan
Thu Sep 6, 2012 3:45 AM
Old Navy, I think you have your answer. We should re-elect Obama because W Bush was a bad president. Now he's continued a lot of the Bush policies, but thats besides the point.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Sep 6, 2012 6:33 AM
Reply to ROCK,
I guess you are a newcomer to this blog-post. The above mentioned JW has been posting for many many months and based on the totality of his posts, he is a very embittered man who constantly post the same racist nonsense. Lately he has been somewhat subdued but his constant insults of the president always have some racial element to them. He constantly uses the slur "boy" to refer to the president. When I called him on the use of that slur several months back, he denied that it was a slur. it is thinking like that that gives me reason to believe strongly that JW is a racist. Hisw posts are a constant reminder of how far we have come as a human race but how far behind so many people still are when it comes to recognizing the rights and aspirations of so many in our society who have been left behind. Those of us who have been lucky to enjoy the fruits of a generous nation(my personal success is closely tied to the G.I. Bill and the education I got as a result) need to constantly look below us and reach down a hand to help lift up others behind us. It is only through a strong educational base and a well prepared workforce that our nation will survive and continue to lead the world toward freedom. That said, it is also incumbant on us to recognize that certain interests want to destroy our foundations. We have to recognize all threatsw to the United States both from beyond our borders to the threats from within. That is not bigotry, that is prudent thinking.
Comment: #23
Posted by: robert lipka
Thu Sep 6, 2012 7:40 AM
The people of this Republic, at least those not forming part of the moron and recipient classes, those who do not remain obama zombies and those paying any sort of attention are indeed better off since obama came to power with a demorat senate and demorat house and then subsequently just a demorat senate.

They are better off because obama and the demorats, drunk with power have exposed to all just what they really are, to wit, a godless, lawless, corupt, secular, anti semitic, anti life, anti business, anti private property, anti Constitution Marxist rabble and an envy class war driven mob.

Obama and his administration have thankfully exposed the true evils of liberalism progressivism secularism and socialism for all to see. We have been educated and are thus better off.

Although all of the above has been on display since 2009 it was most recently highlighted in the debacle on the floor of the demorats own convention last evening when the oral floor vote was taken to amend the obama authorized platform to include reference to our rights coming from God and to Jerusalem being the capital of Isreal. Seems obama does not agree with his own policy on Isreal.

The fact that over half of the demorat delegates voiced nay to the amendment was indicative enough of the above but what followed was worse.

The chair had been instructed that the amendment was to pass no matter what. That was clear, the amendment acceptance language was already on his teleprompter. However, when the oral vote was not even close to the 2/3 majority as required by the convention rules even after a third attempt, the chair nevertheless bypassed the stated will of the demorats at the convention and amended in any event.

The booing that resulted was not as some are saying the booing of God but it was the booing of obama's disregard of the expressed will of even his own convention. This is typical of the dictator that he is and of the dictators that the demorat leadership have become.

Rules! What rules? Constitution! What Constitution?

Screw the rules, screw the Constitution, screw the will of the delegates, screw the will of the people of this Republic.

Its obam'a's its iadministration that rules, its the obama czars that rule, its obama regulations that rule, the obama executive orders that rule. Co equal brances of government means nothing to obama or his enablers.

Oh yes we are better off because we have been educated to the evils of the demorats and of obama style Marxism and will not make the same mistake twice.
Comment: #24
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Sep 6, 2012 7:43 AM
Re: robert lipka

Well said.
Comment: #25
Posted by: morgan
Thu Sep 6, 2012 12:46 PM
Re Morgan and Lipka

One more time.

Lipka and Morgan constantly display the liberal character flaw of pigeon holeing someone's race by the political views he holds and the truths he is prepared to voice.

Although I made it clear some time back on this "blog" as Lipka likes to call it, I am of mixed race and proud of that fact. LOL!

My many many friends would laugh out loud reading Lipka's posts tagging me with racism and bigotry and by necessity making the wrongful presumption that I am white. LOL again !

Just as "real" blacks [obama has been accused by some dems of not being black enough or not a "real" black] have license to use the N word, freely, I have license to refer to obama as boy. He is a useless man child {boy}, a petulent, narcissistic, juvenile in a man's job for which he is wholly ill suited.

Lipka's and Morgan's presumptions are real actual racism and identity politics on display for all to see. I have made no presumption about their race.

The presumptions expressed by Lipka and Morgan are also typical of how so called enlightened (LOL!) progressives view minorities and those mixed race non whites. Unless one like me toes the demorat party line, or stays on the plantation,or is content to seek the scraps from my government masta's table, or refrains from holding or expressing firm conservative views and or does not display the homage that the negrophiles insist everyone must have for obama then I am to be labelled bigot and racist. LOL!

The attendees at the DNC last night were simply mules at the Dependency National Convention. The gimme gimme gimmies. They represent the hand out seekers and those prepared to be enslaved by government welfare. It is that welfare that the democrats use has keep minorities in their place and dependent. I know ! Lived it !

Lipka rightly said "We have to recognize all threats to the United States both from beyond our borders to the threats from within. That is not bigotry, that is prudent thinking"

The problem is that neither Lipka nor Morgan can recognize the enemy within because to the extent that they continue to enable obama's destruction of the Republic and its people then they are part of that enemy.
Comment: #26
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Sep 6, 2012 1:43 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Susan Estrich
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Brent Bozell

8 Aug 2014 "Limited, Specific and Achievable"

21 Dec 2007 Spears' Family Values

30 Jan 2014 The State of Our Union